Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 The gay population according to the CDC is about 2%. Perhaps you are right though the percentage is not nearly close to the obviously made up claim of 10%.The Gallup polling organization puts the percentage a bit higher, 3.8 percent. Gallup also found that Americans estimate the percentage to be much higher, 25 percent. Quite the disparity, that.
Buckeye Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Scott, if you want the noise about what elder oaks said regarding the county clerk to die down, just acknowledge what he said, acknowledge the degree to which his statement differs from your prior statements, and then move on. Closing threads and denouncing other board members will only lead to more such noise. That said, I'll take up your request to look at the many other good remarks in the address. IMO, the central point is Oaks rejection of the 'wall of separation' between church and state, and replacement with a 'curtain' through which light and knowledge can pass both ways. This is really good. Certainly religion has and continues to play an uplifting role in government (on the whole). One example is the abolition movement. Likewise, government has and continues to play an uplifting role in religion (on the whole). One example is the civil rights movement's effect on changing various churchs' racist teachings (including our own). Light goes both ways through the curtain. The 'world' on net is a positive influence that makes our church better. I'll be using this address the next time my church friends take to denouncing the world we live in. 1
Buckeye Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 DN has another article (this one by Tad Walch) that speaks more directly to Elder Oaks' comments regarding Kim Davis, as well as the good aspects he sees in the Obergefell decision (yes, I said good aspects): http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865639497/Elder-Oaks-suggests-center-path-of-mutual-understanding-instead-of-wall-between-church-and-state.html It's likely that some will judge Elder Oaks' call for a "balance" and "mutual respect" between the law and religion as nothing more than an attempt to call a truce now that the church has lost the war (metaphorically speaking, at least regarding SSM). I think that judgment is wrong. But regardless, may I propose that those who support SSM (as I do) will see our churches come around more quickly through a truce than through continued hostilities. The primary reason that secular opinions have changed is that society has been allowed to actually know SS families and the good fruit they bear. Religious opinions will follow the same trajectory. An environment of balance and truce fosters that growth. At the risk of sounding sappy, I will say that I have been impressed and touched by the patient examples of Daniel2 and other LGBT friends and family. To parrot the metaphor (and lived example) of Elder Maxwell, you have been forced to drink from a bitter cup and yet not become bitter yourselves. When I wonder whether God still works in the world today, I think of your examples and humbly conclude that yes, He must. There's no other explanation for me. Thank you. 4
SmileyMcGee Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Surprise, surprise. A religious leader quote mining and advocating for more religion in society. I propose a new topic for the thread: "Living the Word of Wisdom in a World Where McDonalds Breakfast is Served All Day." Anyone else concerned about this attack on the WoW? Sign of the times? Edited October 21, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
california boy Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Bug off. From Elder Oaks talk "Parties with different views on the relationship between church and state should advocate and act with civility," Oaks said. "We all lose when an atmosphere of anger or hostility or contention prevails. We all lose when we cannot debate public policies without resorting to boycotts, firings and intimidation of our adversaries." 3
Meadowchik Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 The talk does sound terrific and Oaks' take on the clerk is the same as my own.However, refusal based on personal belief must be distinguished from refusal based on a critical, exigent conflict of one law with others or with basic morality.Imagine, say, a clerk not opening up a rural office to stranded hikers during a dangerous hailstorm, based on safety rules for opening hours.Basically, there's a need to differentiate between what Wendy Davis did and what Adolf Eichmann should have done.
jwhitlock Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 From Elder Oaks talk Interesting that you demand civility from Scott, while refusing to be so yourself.
sethpayne Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Bug off. This is another tactic you use, Scott. When it is demonstrated that you wrong or that a point you made is problematic you revert to: "this conversation is over" or "bug off." Not often. But sometimes -- as you have done here. It is absolutely true that you close down threads when they start turning against you. Do you deny this fact? PS -- anyone want to put a wager on how quickly Scott will shut down this thread? Edited October 21, 2015 by sethpayne 3
hagoth7 Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Interesting that you demand civility from Scott, while refusing to be so yourself.I didn't see anything uncivil in CB's post. Did I miss something?
sethpayne Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Interesting that you demand civility from Scott, while refusing to be so yourself. Hey jwhitlock -- how was CB being uncivil? Honest question.
sethpayne Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I didn't see anything uncivil in CB's post. Did I miss something? Yeah... I didn't see anything uncivil either. He simply stated out a fact about Scott's posting and moderation habits. It wasn't an attack or insult in any way.
thesometimesaint Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 SkepticChristian resurrected an old thread of mine to link to an AP story about this talk given today in Sacramento by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. I am starting this new thread to link to my own story. I think mine is more thorough in that I didn't see the need to sensationalize it by focusing on the county clerk. As can be seen, he said a lot of interesting and important things. It's a balancing act. Few, if any, want an immoral government, and few, if any, want government to decide morals.
Sky Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) What is getting lost in all the noise about what he said regarding the county clerk is that he also applied the principle to governors and attorneys general who refuse to enforce laws they don't like: As I recall, this was an issue after California voters passed Prop 8 and state officials wouldn't uphold it. Sometimes not upholding or breaking laws is a good thing. It propels social awareness and positive change in a way that can't be achieved without it. I don't think anybody today would argue that Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus because that was the law at the time. Edited October 21, 2015 by Sky
jwhitlock Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 I didn't see anything uncivil in CB's post. Did I miss something? I'm talking about CB's overall posting style, along with his initial response to Scott in halconero's thread making accusations about Scott personally. 1
jwhitlock Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 This is another tactic you use, Scott. When it is demonstrated that you wrong or that a point you made is problematic you revert to: "this conversation is over" or "bug off." Not often. But sometimes -- as you have done here. It is absolutely true that you close down threads when they start turning against you. Do you deny this fact? PS -- anyone want to put a wager on how quickly Scott will shut down this thread? That's an extremely subjective accusation presented as fact, and not something that I think you can definitively prove. Especially since the moderators of this board routinely shut down threads when they head off on tangents - like this one is doing now. Hence, your wager becomes self-fulfilling because it is nothing more than a tangent aimed at Scott personally, and not about the OP. 1
Zakuska Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) The talk does sound terrific and Oaks' take on the clerk is the same as my own. However, refusal based on personal belief must be distinguished from refusal based on a critical, exigent conflict of one law with others or with basic morality. Imagine, say, a clerk not opening up a rural office to stranded hikers during a dangerous hailstorm, based on safety rules for opening hours. Basically, there's a need to differentiate between what Wendy Davis did and what Adolf Eichmann should have done. I wonder how Elder Oaks would counsel Daniel who refused to obey the law to only pray to the Idol God of Babylon? A bad law is a bad law is a bad law. Edited October 21, 2015 by Zakuska 1
jwhitlock Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 Hey jwhitlock -- how was CB being uncivil? Honest question. CB brought up a tangent from another thread where he made a personal accusation about what Scott does. Whether you like it or not, that is grounds for shutting a thread down, per board rules. The pile-on against Scott misses the whole point that CB was not discussing the OP, but taking a tangential shot at Scott from another thread. Scott would be well within his rights to shut this down if (like other threads) it becomes an attack on him personally, instead of a discussion of the OP. That's all I'm going to say about this further, though Scott can correct me if I've been wrong. This OP is not a discussion about subjective accusations of Scott's "tactics". 3
rockpond Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 SkepticChristian resurrected an old thread of mine to link to an AP story about this talk given today in Sacramento by Elder Dallin H. Oaks. I am starting this new thread to link to my own story. I think mine is more thorough in that I didn't see the need to sensationalize it by focusing on the county clerk. As can be seen, he said a lot of interesting and important things. I love the Mormon Newsroom headline: "Mormon Apostle Calls for Balance and Accommodation, Not Culture Wars". Your headline is good also, Scott. And I loved what Oaks had to say about living together in mutual understanding and peace while cautioning against extreme voices. Wonderful counsel. This also continues a trend from our Church leaders this year that I have very much appreciated... the support of LGBT rights in Utah legislation, choosing to stay with the BSA when they voted to allow gay leaders, and now an apostle making a public statement condemning the actions of the Rowan County Clerk. 2
Popular Post jwhitlock Posted October 21, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 21, 2015 I wonder how elder Oaks would councel Daniel who refused to obey the law to only pray to the Idol God of Babylon? A bad law is a bad law. Not the same situation as the clerk. The clerk's duties were specific when it came to marriage licenses. A "violation of conscience" is not a valid reason for the non-performance of specific duties that are part of the clerk's job where harm cannot be demonstrated. Daniel's case was purely one of personal conscience that had nothing to do with the official exercise of his duties. I think there's a pretty clear distinction there. 5
Zakuska Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Not the same situation as the clerk. The clerk's duties were specific when it came to marriage licenses. A "violation of conscience" is not a valid reason for the non-performance of specific duties that are part of the clerk's job where harm cannot be demonstrated. Daniel's case was purely one of personal conscience that had nothing to do with the official exercise of his duties. I think there's a pretty clear distinction there.He refused to obey an unjust law that was designed by his enemies to get him in trouble. The same thing happened to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego when they refused to obey an unjust law designed to get them in trouble as well. This law is getting people in trouble and forcing them to "violate their religious conscience". Im sure we can find plenty of Book of Mormon Scriptures where people refuse to do their duty when faced with an unjust law or ordered directly by the Judges of the Land to "violate their concience". Martin Luther King, in his famous "Letter from the Birmingham Jail," called on all Americans to actively but peacefully oppose laws that were morally wrong. King wrote: "There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law." Kim Davis did exatly what Martin Luther King Jr. did. Edited October 21, 2015 by Zakuska
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 (edited) Scott, if you want the noise about what elder oaks said regarding the county clerk to die down, just acknowledge what he said, acknowledge the degree to which his statement differs from your prior statements, and then move on. Closing threads and denouncing other board members will only lead to more such noise. Whoah Nellie! My only concern was that the many important things Elder Oaks said were getting lost in the focus and sensationalism about what he said regarding the county clerk. I've now been able to highlight some of the other things, so I'm satisfied. If you want to talk more about the county clerk, go ahead; I won't mind. I don't care whether discussion of it dies down or not. And I closed my old thread from several weeks ago about what Elder Rasband said at BYU because it was not a thread about what Elder Oaks said yesterday. The only reason SkepticChristian resurrected my thread and tacked his post on the end of it is that SkepticChristian, because he is on "limited" status, is not permitted to start threads of his own. I do think discussion of an important topic needs to be in a thread dedicated to that purpose. Do you disagree? I invited Halconero to leave his thread open and said it wouldn't bother me if he did. I don't know who closed it; maybe Halconero, maybe one of the moderators. It couldn't have been me, because I can't lock threads I don't start. That said, I'll take up your request to look at the many other good remarks in the address. IMO, the central point is Oaks rejection of the 'wall of separation' between church and state, and replacement with a 'curtain' through which light and knowledge can pass both ways. This is really good. Certainly religion has and continues to play an uplifting role in government (on the whole). One example is the abolition movement. Likewise, government has and continues to play an uplifting role in religion (on the whole). One example is the civil rights movement's effect on changing various churchs' racist teachings (including our own).Light goes both ways through the curtain. The 'world' on net is a positive influence that makes our church better. I'll be using this address the next time my church friends take to denouncing the world we live in. I agree that was very good, and I highlighted it in a post prior to yours. It would suit me just fine if, henceforth and forever, everyone started to refer to the "curtain" of separation between church and state. Alas, I don't think that will happen, because "wall of separation" has been for too long entrenched in the popular vernacular. Edited October 22, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 I love the Mormon Newsroom headline: "Mormon Apostle Calls for Balance and Accommodation, Not Culture Wars". Your headline is good also, Scott. And I loved what Oaks had to say about living together in mutual understanding and peace while cautioning against extreme voices. Wonderful counsel. Thank you. I took my thread title directly from the text of the speech that was provided to us by Elder Oaks's office. So it was the title he himself chose for his remarks.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 CB brought up a tangent from another thread where he made a personal accusation about what Scott does. Whether you like it or not, that is grounds for shutting a thread down, per board rules. The pile-on against Scott misses the whole point that CB was not discussing the OP, but taking a tangential shot at Scott from another thread. Scott would be well within his rights to shut this down if (like other threads) it becomes an attack on him personally, instead of a discussion of the OP. That's all I'm going to say about this further, though Scott can correct me if I've been wrong. This OP is not a discussion about subjective accusations of Scott's "tactics".Thank you for understanding, jwhitlock. I won't be closing this thread, though I do want the posts to be on topic. The subject of my closing threads is definitely off-topic.
jwhitlock Posted October 21, 2015 Posted October 21, 2015 He refused to obey an unjust law that was designed by his enemies to get him in trouble. The same thing happened to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego when they refused to obey an unjust law designed to get them in trouble as well.This law is getting people in trouble and forcing them to "violate their conscience".It would be a violation of conscience if a pastor is forced to perform an SSM. That would be the same situation as Daniel's.The clerk is required to provide marriage licenses as defined by the law. They can object, but the only real recourse they have is to quit their job in this specific instance. I think that the situation with the clerk is very specific as referred to by Elder Oaks. Other situations must be evaluated on their own merits. I don't think the clerk's actions can be applied generally. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2015 Author Posted October 21, 2015 Not the same situation as the clerk. The clerk's duties were specific when it came to marriage licenses. A "violation of conscience" is not a valid reason for the non-performance of specific duties that are part of the clerk's job where harm cannot be demonstrated. Daniel's case was purely one of personal conscience that had nothing to do with the official exercise of his duties. I think there's a pretty clear distinction there.I definitely agree. Daniel did not take an oath that would have precluded him from praying to his God.
Recommended Posts